Miers will probably be LEAST disastrous of Idiot Son's crony appointments

[Proud2BAmurkin]

How's that for scary

[WritingIsMyReligion]

1. Fucking mind-blowing. nt

[npincus]

2. I don't know... she's under tremendous pressure, if confirmed,

not to let her mentor, and "the most brilliant man she's ever met" down. I think she will do everything in her power to fulfill the RWnut's expectations on behalf of the Monkey who promoted her.

[asjr]

3. I agree. And in spite of all these Repubs saying they

do not want her, when the vote comes up they will all vote for her. She would make No. 5 to overturn Roe v Wade. That is what they want most of all.

[Little-Jen]

5. No, at most she'll make #4

Scalia and Thomas are 100% against Roe, and Roberts probably is, so if she's against Roe, that makes 4. Kennedy, Souter, Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsberg are all in favor.

[asjr]

6. Oops, you are correct.

[Czolgosz]

8. She may be #5 in the votes to greatly restrict Roe v. Wade. Kennedy will

uphold Roe, but he has also voted to allow the states to put whatever asinine restrictions on the right they want.

[Little-Jen]

12. You are right

I also feel Kennedy has been moving to the right, and may totally vote to strike down Roe. Stranger things have happened.

[NV Whino]

4. I don't care.

It's time to say no.

No records? No appointment!

[Kenroy]

7. Would you rather have

Janice Rogers-Brown or Miguel Estrada? Perhaps Michael Luttig?

I don't understand the desire to torpedo Miers. Yes, she's a bad choice - a horrible choice... but not because of her positions (we don't KNOW her positions). It's because she's barely qualified.

But there are plenty of highly-qualified people whose positions we KNOW... and I don't think anybody here would want them on the court.

[NV Whino]

9. The object is to keep saying NO

until we get someone acceptable. Yes, we will be accused of being obstructionists. So fucking what. These appointments are for life.

On Edit: What makes you think we will get records of anyone else? We certainly didn't for Roberts.

[Kenroy]

10. But that won't be the result

At the second filibuster, if not the first, the republicans use the nuclear option to do away with the filibuster.

Then, a true wingnut gets confirmed, and the Dems have NOTHING left. You're living in a dreamworld if you think Dems can filibuster multiple nominees.

[NV Whino]

11. If we must go down, then we go down swinging

rather than rolling over and saying "hit me again, please."

And don't discount the delay the filibuster(s) will cause. The entire makeup of congress could change in 2006.

[Kenroy]

13. That sounds like

cutting off your nose to spite your face.

We have to accept the fact that Bush is NOT going to nominate somebody we like, and I think it would be foolhardy to lose the right to filibuster just for appearances' sake.

[NV Whino]

14. The "right" to filibuster

at this stage of the game is a fallacy.

[Kenroy]

15. Please explain the fallacy

as it stands today, the filibuster is intact. It can be taken away.

What's the fallacy?

[NV Whino]

16. The fallacy is

when we gave up the right to filibuster except under "extraordinary" circumstances. There is no definition of "extraordinary." At any point the conservatives in control of congress (in this case) can simply say, "That does not constitute 'extraordinary' circumstances, therefore, you may not filibuster."

If we controlled congress, we could do the same thing. However we don't control congress at this time.

[Kenroy]

17. we "gave up" nothing

you act like it was a choice on the part of Dems. It most assuredly wasn't.